There is a United Nations Scheme to Overturn our Sovereignty
The UN compact on migration sets out a vision for world order that promises disorder. It is a plan for borderless chaos, a triumph of ideology over reality, an exercise in liberal excess unchecked by reason. The UN has learned nothing from the EU’s failed experiment in mass ¬migration from the Islamic world to the West. Instead, it intends to replicate the model on a global scale. Those wishing to speak truth to power will be penalised. Under the UN plan, free speech is hate speech and truth is condemned.
When Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton rejected the UN mig¬ration plan, it set off a wringing of hands and gnashing of veneers in the upper echelons of lowbrow culture. Borderless ¬bureaucrats and activist lawyers are angry that democracy impedes their will to power. Unelected elitists have felt the sting of popular backlash against open border ¬aggression.
Rather than respecting the sovereign will of Western citizens, the UN is insinuating ¬itself into democratic processes by prioritising international law over domestic law. Yet the UN is profoundly undemocratic. There are no mechanisms by which Western citizens can hold the UN accountable for the consequences of its ¬actions, such as the spread of international jihad via porous ¬border policy.
The final draft of the Global Compact for Migration is an exercise in doublethink presented in managerial mumbo jumbo circa 1990. There is an “open, transparent and inclusive preparatory process”. There are high-level dialogues, platforms that pave the way, inputs and stocktaking phases, a plethora of relevant actors and a predictably “unprece¬dented” review. There are diverse voices, win-win innovations and “shared understandings that ¬unlock the potential of sustainable development for all”. There are pledges to solidarity, inclusivity and diversity in the gender-¬responsive and culturally sensitive compact. But reality is AWOL.
The devil isn’t in the detail of the UN porous border plan, it’s in the glaring omission that mass -migration from the Islamist world to the West threatens the free world order. Numerous surveys demonstrate that 20 per cent to 50 per cent of Muslims living in Western countries want to be governed by sharia. They oppose the secular foundations of the modern West.
The problem of Islamism in the West isn’t arrested at the point of theory. A strong preference for sharia is correlated with hostility against Western societies. One of the more interesting studies, conducted by academics Marco Goli and Shahamak Rezaei, found that almost a fifth of 1113 Muslims surveyed thought sharia should take precedence over national law. ¬Respondents categorised as the most radical Islamists were likelier to express a preference for sharia and “residential concentration of immigrants”. More than a third (36 per cent) of the most radical group had reported being arrested in the past.
The dramatic effect of mass ¬migration from the Islamist world to the West has been civil disorder in the form of violent crime and terrorism. The less dramatic but arguably more pernicious effect has been the development of parallel societies that undermine the animating values of Western ¬society, namely secular statehood, formal equality, freedom of ¬religion and freedom of speech for the flourishing of public reason.
The establishment of parallel legal systems in sharia courts, the censorship of speech deemed offensive to Islamists, the development of ethnic ghettos and the inculcation of Islamist values in schools all demonstrate the failure of ¬migration based on multicultural ideology. But the UN can’t handle such confronting truths. Instead, it demands acquiescence to the lie that the free world’s demise is demographic destiny.
History reveals that freedom of speech is the canary in the mine for political liberty and enlightenment. The battle for free speech is not about empty words but rather the pursuit of truth as part of the Western tradition.
The UN is making extraordinary efforts to suppress truth by attacking freedom of speech. The global compact for migration presents a plan for censorship unprecedented in scale. Under objective 17, it recommends that the free press submit to politically correct thought or lose public funding. The process will be handled expertly by UN minions intent on “sensitising and educating media professionals on ¬migration-related issues and terminology … and stopping allocation of public funding to media outlets” guilty of thought crimes such as “xenophobia” and “intolerance”. Someone tell the UN that Mao Zedong called — he wants his re-education camps back.
The UN’s march against democracy, truth and freedom might be laughable if we weren’t funding it. But the Western taxpayer pours millions into an ¬organisation that rejects our most fundamental values while saddling free-world states with unsustainable debt. Yet only three Western governments have withdrawn from the global compact negotiations. All of them are ¬conservative.
The Coalition government withdrew from the compact negotiations last week after failed ¬efforts to secure sufficient protection for Australia’s sovereignty and democratic rule of law. By contrast, Labor has shown no leadership on the matter. It has resiled from defending secure borders. It is mute on the right of Australians to decide who will enter our country. It will not defend the free press and journalists who speak truth to power.
Labor has a track record of ¬attacking secure borders, compromising Australia’s sovereignty and suppressing free speech for partisan political gain. If last week’s by-election results are any indication of national sentiment, Australians have forgotten the consequences of green-left government. Recall that Labor introduced section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act that enables censorship of politically incorrect speech. When last in government, Labor sought to extend the regime of censorship by introducing a greater control of the press.
Recall, too, that Labor’s border policy resulted in 50,000 unlawful arrivals and 1200 deaths at sea. Malcolm Turnbull estimated the cost of managing the unlawful arrivals was more than $10 billion. It also left 14,500 refugees languishing in UN camps.
The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular ¬Migration is a plan for unsafe societies, unsustainable migration and civil disorder on a global scale. No Western government should ¬entertain the idea of it.
